« Who is Greener? | Main | The countercyclical asset, a continuing series, revisited »
From the Hill
“The House of Representatives is currently experiencing an extraordinarily high amount of e-mail traffic. The Write Your Representative function is therefore intermittently available. While we realize communicating to your Members of Congress is critical, we suggest attempting to do so at a later time, when demand is not so high. System engineers are working to resolve this issue and we appreciate your patience.”
Here is the story. The associated explanation is this:
The House is limiting e-mails from the public to prevent its websites from crashing due to the enormous amount of mail being submitted on the financial bailout bill.
Gee, I wonder if all those people are for or against the bailout?
I thank Carrie Conko for the pointer.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 30, 2008 at 05:51 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
It's the Ron Paul spammers.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 30, 2008 6:00:49 PM
My bet is that all those people are, like me, pretty damned scared right now. I don't really care about long term implications of any bailout. I just want Congress to do whatever it can to keep me from losing my job and losing the remaining 75% of my personal savings. Perhaps at 45 one can remain optimistic about "best case scenarios", Tyler, but it's much harder when one is getting close to 60.
Posted by: John Dewey at Sep 30, 2008 6:05:21 PM
Maybe at 60 it is best not to have a large majority of your savings in the stock market.
Posted by: Graham at Sep 30, 2008 6:19:43 PM
Imagine how many e-mails they'll be getting the day Congress votes on whether to raise payroll taxes to 30% to pay for the real economic disaster on the horizon.
Posted by: Anthony at Sep 30, 2008 6:20:00 PM
I emailed my congress man two bays before the bailout begging him to vote against it and listing many of the reasons Tabarrok (spelling), Kling, and Caplan have spelled out.
He didn't vote for it, but I don't think I was the only one writing him about it.
Posted by: Alex at Sep 30, 2008 6:27:16 PM
Anthony--
Yes we can!
Posted by: Gene2 at Sep 30, 2008 6:28:34 PM
They only have to take a sample, like pollsters.
Posted by: rhhardin at Sep 30, 2008 6:31:28 PM
"Maybe at 60 it is best not to have a large majority of your savings in the stock market."
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. A 60 year old man can expect to live 25 to 30 more years. His 55 year old wife could live 40 years. Based on the past 70 year history of investments, a well-diversified portfolio primarily invested in equities makes the most sense. The problem right now, though, is that we may be experiencing that once-a-century exception.
Posted by: John Dewey at Sep 30, 2008 6:33:33 PM
Of course, they are against a bailout. It is surprising that the elites in Washington underestimated the anger of the public about this.
Posted by: Dirk at Sep 30, 2008 6:42:36 PM
i wonder if the 'once-a-century exception' was the 60 year period ofextremely low-risk, high-growth, equity-premium time in the US. how much of that was due to the US's unique economic position and the dollar's reserve currency role? and how deeply has the crisis damaged our position?
Posted by: DK at Sep 30, 2008 6:44:54 PM
John Dewey,
You said
My bet is that all those people are, like me, pretty damned scared right now. I don't really care about long term implications of any bailout.I sympathize with your position. However, your fear is causing you to overlook the fact that government action substantially contributed to the current wreck. There is a very real possibility that the bailout could make things worse.
Posted by: TJIT at Sep 30, 2008 7:07:47 PM
@ John Dewey
Which way is it? First you said you don't have any time to be concerned about long-term bailout fallout, then you said you expect to live 30 more years. Last time I checked, 30 years was well into the "long term". You can't have it both ways, can you?
Posted by: Scott at Sep 30, 2008 7:40:00 PM
and john dewey, if you are already expecting to live 30 more years and your wife to live 40 more years, then the long term consequences are still relevant. say they stabilize your funds for now (which I don't think the bailout will do, btw) but kicks the can down the road for a crazy piece of s--t full blown economic meltdown when your 83. Wouldn't it be better to work a few extra years now, when you've still got it together, then to find yourself in the middle whirlwind when you don't have half the abilities you had when you were 55?
Posted by: scott clark at Sep 30, 2008 7:43:35 PM
Stall the bail-out for as long as possible.
Blood makes the grass grow - there are sooooooo many buying opportunities right now in Municipal Bonds its not even funny. Load up cause they are all going to par.....
Posted by: Bryan S at Sep 30, 2008 8:01:01 PM
So much for the "People's House"; its SO convenient for those who
are trying to persuade members to "get on board" not to have to contend
with 10 to 1 emails urging non-supporting members of the bailout
to stand pat. Just when you thing politics cannot become more cynical,
it surprises you. But with the likes of Barney Frank in the mix, a
negative shock is never out of the question.
Posted by: indiana jim at Sep 30, 2008 8:08:57 PM
Another silver lining for Dewey - you can buy an annuity directly from the Federal Reserve now.
Posted by: pytheian at Sep 30, 2008 8:09:07 PM
On age and investment, I'm a conservative ... your age in bonds. (Though these days, FDIC CDs look good for part of the "bond" portion.)
Posted by: odograph at Sep 30, 2008 8:16:09 PM
When you can't sleep, sell down to the sleeping point.
I'm looking at anything I have gains in within taxable accounts to sell. It's going right back in, but I'm a whipper snapper looking for a gamble.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 30, 2008 8:36:32 PM
I wonder if the 'once-a-century exception' was the 60 year period ofextremely low-risk, high-growth, equity-premium time in the US.
Huh? Check out this graph. Does this look low-risk to anyone?
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Sep 30, 2008 8:36:33 PM
joshua, do you have the corresponding graph covering the 1893 and 1907 panics? yes, the postwar period looks quite low risk to me, compared to the previous 60 years or to most other countries.
Posted by: DK at Sep 30, 2008 9:24:47 PM
Joshua - that is very interesting. It would be better to plot the dow against something real like oil or gold rather than the government corrupted CPI.
Posted by: JK at Sep 30, 2008 9:26:55 PM
Interesting argument JK, but neither gold nor oil are within sight of not being government corrupted either.
How about the standard unskilled hourly wage? It's what people use when comparing over centuries, because it's the only thing that really is comparable.
Posted by: doctorpat at Sep 30, 2008 10:31:49 PM
I believe Joshua's graph does not account for dividends, and so does not indicate the total shareholder returns.
Posted by: jonm at Sep 30, 2008 10:32:47 PM
Your graph is missing dividends which before the 80s were the primary cause of equity's excess return. I agree, the post-war period likely was a one time event following the US monopoly position as the only undestroyed industrial power.
I always thought it was ironic, since land prices (the portion of house prices that really had the bubble) are mostly the present value of the location rents (which certainly appear to have declined in the last decade).
Posted by: nelsonal at Sep 30, 2008 10:50:56 PM
scott clark: "if you are already expecting to live 30 more years and your wife to live 40 more years, then the long term consequences are still relevant."
Long term consequences are irrelevant if you right wing idealogues refuse to compromise and cost me 50 to 80 percent my of the savings it took me a lifetime to build.
scott clark: "say they stabilize your funds for now (which I don't think the bailout will do, btw)"
Good for you. But I'm going to believe Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke when they say that action now is needed to save a deep and long recession.
scott clark: "Wouldn't it be better to work a few extra years now, when you've still got it together"
I've been working for 45 years, paying the goddamned taxes, serving my country during wartime, sacrificing to save up a nice nestegg. That's enough for me.
Posted by: John Dewey at Oct 1, 2008 5:27:10 AM
